Dead people voting in chicago

[Klingsor]

Because it's fundamental to the way our government is designed from the outset. Nobody is going to dismantle the functioning of our Republic because you're upset that a rancher in Wyoming has a little more voice than you or I do as individuals.

I understand: "We've always done it that way" carries a lot of weight. The system is entrenched, until and unless enough people call it into question. Meanwhile, I'm not losing sleep over it.

 

[KennF]

Minority rights have to be respected, but there are other "checks on power" besides skewing election results.

Otherwise, the only fair procedure would be to weigh the vote of each black, Hispanic, LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, etc. person several times as much as the vote of each white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

Since our elections don't privilege those various minorities, why should they do so for rural dwellers?

I hear ya.

By respecting the rights of the minority, I was referring just to numbers. I refer to rural, not in the lifestyle, but rather sparse population.

Montana, North Dakota, or Alaska already get a lesser proportion of benefit from apportionment. A million dollar in road improvements invested in Philadelphia benefits more than a million dollar in road improvements invested in Boise. They already receive a very weak voice in the House, due to their population.

If we did move to direct elections of the presidency, what would stop candidates from ignoring all sparsely populated areas and just concentrate on urban centers where there are more votes? I mean, an ad buy in New York City hits 8.4 million people, whereas an ad buy in Sioux Falls only hits 160K people. Why not ignore Sioux Falls and concentrate on New York City?

As I said, it is an interesting debate.

 

[Klingsor]

By respecting the rights of the minority, I was referring just to numbers. I refer to rural, not in the lifestyle, but rather sparse population.

But again, that view seems shortsighted. If it's really about respecting the rights of the minority, why should one particular minority--people in sparse population areas--have their votes weighted more heavily, when the same protection isn't accorded to other minorities?

Yes, people in rural areas are in danger of having their voices unheard. But that's true of all those other minorities as well. If we can establish legislative and judicial protections for the latter--without skewing the electoral process--presumably we can do so for the former as well.

And yes, an interesting debate.

 

[TexanStar]

I understand: "We've always done it that way" carries a lot of weight. The system is entrenched, until and unless enough people call it into question. Meanwhile, I'm not losing sleep over it.

It's less about tradition, and more about rules which were jointly agreed upon as criteria for states to join the union.

Consider it to basically be terms of a treaty. You can't undo them unless all parties to the treaty agree, and the states that benefit wouldn't agree.

 

[Klingsor]

It's less about tradition, and more about rules which were jointly agreed upon as criteria for states to join the union.

Consider it to basically be terms of a treaty. You can't undo them unless all parties to the treaty agree, and the states that benefit wouldn't agree.

True. Since the constitutional amendment process itself is based on the equality of states, not people, a change is unlikely.